DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 2, 2026 has been entered.
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-8 and the addition of new claims 9 and 10.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, lines 10 and 11, the phrase “at least a portion of the dead bolt retracting structure is operative to cause retraction of the dead bolt” should be changed to “at least a portion of the dead bolt retracting structure is operable by a door handle on an outside of the door,” in lines 12 and 13, the phrase “operation of the dead bolt retracting structure is prevented, thereby preventing retraction of the dead bolt” should be changed to “operation of the dead bolt retracting structure by the door handle is prevented, thereby preventing retraction of the dead bolt by the door handle,” in lines 14 and 15, the phrase “an escape lever including a movable arm interacting with the dead bolt retracting structure and being received within the cam aperture thereof” should be changed to “received within the cam aperture of the dead bolt retracting structure,” in line 18, the phrase “with a pushing motion in a first direction” should be changed to “with a pushing motion applied to the escape lever in a first direction,” and in line 21, the phrase “a pulling motion in a second direction” should be changed to “a pulling motion applied to the escape lever in a second direction.”
In regards to claim 2, line 2, the phrase “interacts with the dead bolt retracting structure” should be changed to “interacts with the cam aperture of the dead bolt retracting structure.”
In regards to claim 3, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “when the escape lever is pushed and against the other of the first or second cam portions when the escape lever is pulled” should be changed to “when the pushing motion is applied to the escape lever and against the other of the first or second cam portions when the pulling motion is applied to the escape lever” so as to coincide with the language of claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “when the escape lever is pushed and against the other of the first or second cam portions when the escape lever is pulled” should be changed to “when the pushing motion is applied to the escape lever and against the other of the first or second cam portions when the pulling motion is applied to the escape lever” so as to coincide with the language of claim 1.
In regards to claim 5, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “to allow movement of the dead bolt from an extended position to a retracted position” should be changed to “to allow movement of the dead bolt from an extended position to a retracted position by a door handle.”
In regards to claim 7, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the cam aperture of the dead bolt retracting structure has a first cam portion and a second cam portion, and the camming of the movable arm against the portion of the dead bolt retracting structure further comprises: camming the movable arm against one of the first or second cam portions when the pushing motion is used to actuate the escape lever or against the other of the first or second cam portions when the pulling motion is used to actuate the escape lever.” This language ensures that the language of claim 7 is consistent with the language of claims 5 and 6.
In regards to claim 8, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the cam aperture of the dead bolt retracting structure has a first cam portion and a second cam portion, and wherein the method further comprises camming the movable arm against one of the first or second cam portions when the pushing motions is used to actuate the escape lever or against the other of the first or second cam portions when the pulling motion is used to actuate the escape lever.”
In regards to claim 9, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the cam aperture is substantially v-shaped, the cam aperture having a first branch and a second branch, the first branch extending from a location in the cam aperture corresponding to neutral position of the movable arm and defining a first end portion, and the second branch extending from the location in the cam aperture corresponding to the neutral position of the movable arm and defining a second end portion.”
In regards to claim 10, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: “wherein the cam aperture is substantially v-shaped, the cam aperture having a first branch and a second branch, the first branch extending from a location in the cam aperture corresponding to the neutral position of the movable arm and defining a first end portion, and the second branch extending from the location in the cam aperture corresponding to the neutral position of the movable arm and defining a second end portion.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear what element of the system is allowed to retract the dead bolt using the dead bolt retracting structure in an unlocked condition of the lock, but is also prevented from retracting the dead bolt using the dead bolt retracting structure in a locked condition of the lock, as recited in lines 9-13. It is understood from the specification that the system includes a door handle on an outside of the door, such that operation of the door handle can retract the dead bolt in the unlocked condition of the lock, but is prevented from retracting the dead bolt in the locked condition of the lock. Without the recitation of the door handle that is allowed and prevented from retracting the dead bolt, the claim language suggests that the escape lever can always retract the dead bolt, but might also be the structure that is prevented from retracting the dead bolt, which is not supported by the specification. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined as reciting an operation of a door handle on the outside of the door retracts the dead bolt in the unlocked condition of the lock and is prevented from retracting the dead bolt in the locked condition of the lock. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “an escape lever including a movable arm interacting with the dead bolt retracting structure,” and the claim also recites “a movable arm…being received within the cam aperture thereof” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the movable arm of the escape lever is received within the cam aperture of the dead bolt retracting structure. See objections to claims 1 and 2 above.
In regards to claim 1, the phrase “being operable to retract the dead bolt with a pushing motion in a first direction” suggests that the escape lever applies the pushing motion to the dead bolt, when it is understood from the specification that the pushing motion is applied to the escape lever and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 1, the phrase “the escape lever being operable to retract the dead bolt with a pulling motion in a second direction” suggests that the escape lever applies the pulling motion to the dead bolt, when it is understood from the specification that the pulling motion is applied to the escape lever and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 5, it is unclear what element of the system is allowed to cause movement of the dead bolt from the extended position to the retracted position after unlocking. It is understood from the specification that the system includes a door handle that is operated to move the dead bolt from the extended position to the retracted position when unlocking occurs. Without the recitation of the door handle, the claim language suggests that the escape lever can always retract the dead bolt, but might also be the structure that is prevented from retracting the dead bolt, which is not supported by the specification. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined as reciting that the movement of the dead bolt from an extended position to a retracted position when unlocking occurs is by a door handle. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 7, the relationship between the first and second cam portions of claim 7 and the cam aperture of claim 5 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the first and second cam portions of claim 7 are part of the cam aperture of claim 5, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 7, the limitation “camming the movable arm cams against the dead bolt retracting structure further comprises” appears to refer to the camming method step of claim 6, and will be examined as such, and therefore, the language of claim 7 should be consistent with that of claim 6. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 7, since claim 5 has been amended to recite the pushing and pulling motions in the alternative with the word “or,” then the pushing and pulling motions of claim 7 should be recited in the alternative as well and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 8, the relationship between the first and second cam portions of claim 8 and the cam aperture of claim 5 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the first and second cam portions of claim 8 are part of the cam aperture of claim 5, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 8, there is no antecedent basis for the “camming the movable arm” method step in lines 2 and 3, and therefore, the claim has been examined as referring to the camming step of lines 4-6. Furthermore, since claim 5 has been amended to recite the pushing and pulling motions in the alternative with the word “or,” then the pushing and pulling motions of claim 8 should be recited in the alternative as well and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 9 and 10, it is unclear how the cam aperture is “Y-shaped,” when the cam aperture is shown to only have two branches, such that the cam aperture is substantially v-shaped. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that the cam aperture is substantially v-shaped. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 9 and 10, it is unclear how a structure can extend from a position, since a position is not a physical component or structure. It is understood from the specification that the first and second branches extend from a location in the cam aperture corresponding to the neutral position of the movable arm, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 2-4 and 6, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 1 and 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 5, Jasper (US-7424814) fails to disclose that the escape lever includes a movable arm received within the cam aperture of the dead bolt retracting structure. The device of Jasper includes a cam aperture 362 (Figure 13), but the cam aperture is part of the escape lever, and therefore, the escape lever does not include a movable arm received in a cam aperture separate from the escape lever. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Jasper without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action.
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights